Overreacting, No way. I live in Florida and the thought of buildings being
built that way here would scare me to death.
PETERSON CONSULTING GROUP
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Polhemus <bpolhem(--nospam--at)swbell.net>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>; <aec-residential(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:06 AM
Subject: "Blown Away"
> Recently, an architect client of mine and I were discussing a feature of a
> commercial building we were working on. He does lots of convenience
> food combination facilities. One client has a "doghouse" at the front
> of the store, a "penthouse" type structure that allows a sign-logo above
> entrance that extends about eight feet or so above the parapet line.
> The doghouse itself is CFS supporting metal cladding, which sits on the
> and joists of the main structure.
> The design drawings given me showed a CFS structure that was WAY
> to resist code-specified wind forces, and I proceeded to design it
> which made for a much "beefier" structure, particularly where the roof
> and overall connnections were concerned. When he saw this, he had a
> reaction. "Too much", he said.
> I pointed out to him that we were building in an area where the design
> speed is 120 mph (three-second gust). His response was "oh, that doesn't
> if they had a hurricane, the doghouse would just be blown off, and they
> build it back again".
> I had NEVER heard of this approach before! In essence, he's saying "just
> it to handle gravity loads and don't worry about wind, this is not an
> portion of the structure. If it gets scoured off, no big deal".
> Have any of you designed "components and cladding" type portions of a
> under this approach? The architect insists it is perfectly valid: "we do
> the time". Of course, this guy is the "Wal-Mart" of architects in our
> and is used by developers here because he works cheaply, and doesn't get
> their way.
> I'm starting to rethink my relationship with him on this basis, but I'd
> know if this is perhaps more commonplace than I realize, and if I'm
> "overreacting". I just can't imagine a building department anywhere
> portion of a structure the possibility of being "blown away".